CPAC: From GOP Fringe Group to Neocon Powerhouse

WASHINGTON, D.C.—This year an estimated8,000-10,000 participants convergedon the annual meeting in Washington,D.C. of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). That’s a far cry fromthe several hundred folks—including this writer—who attended the 1979 CPAC meeting,back in the days CPAC was still considered a bit too “extreme” forthe tastes of most Republicans.

But make no mistake about it: Even then, CPAC organizers (largelyGOP loyalists) were certain toban from their podium those conservativeswho dared venture into verboten territory. This includedthose who talked about the Federal Reserve System,Zionist power or the influence of pressure groupssuch as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg.

Although first convened in 1974, it wasn’t until after the election to the presidency in 1980 of CPACfavorite Ronald Reagan that CPAC—and conservatism—became “respectable.” This launched an erain which a remarkable number of longtime self-describedGOP “moderates” suddenly became overnight conservatives vying to be as one with thereigning president who became a virtual folk hero.

As such, during the Reagan era, CPAC leaders andorganizations associated with them evolved frombeing considered “fringe elements” into the rulingelite within the Republican Party and assorted GOP-oriented think tanks and political action groups.

During that same time frame a small but well-funded and assertivegroup of hard-line Israel-centric ex-Trotskyite communist intriguersnow widely known as the “neoconservatives” were rising in influence,soon grabbing control of the conservativenetwork and, under thepresidency of George W. Bush, emerged as the unchallenged forcedominating the national Republican apparatus.

Things got so bad that in 2001, for the first timeever, Republican conservative icon, columnist PatBuchanan, was not invited to speak at CPAC. Thatwas the year Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not only invited to CPAC, butalso gave the keynote address at the event’s Ronald Reagan Banquet. That, if anything, demonstrated how far CPAC had gone.

Under their new leaders, conservatives were corralledinto the internationalist and imperialist NewWorld Order (NWO) orbit, supporting American meddlingaround the planet, abandoning the longtime Republican conservative tradition of nationalism and noninterventionand siding without reservation with Israel in the face of growing global opposition to the Jewish state. The advent of the 9-11 tragedy gave neoconseven greater power in shaping themindset of conservatives, firmly cementing them into the NWO foundation.

While in 2004 and 2008, organized efforts by theRon Paul presidential campaign brought many Paulfollowers to CPAC, their presence (and their opposition to the warmongering policies of the DubyaBush administration) was treated as a colorful, ifvocal, annoyance. “Ron Paul,” CPAC leaders asserted, “was going nowhere.” And, they would addwith a wink, “there’s some question as to whetherhe can even be counted as a real Republican.” Paulwas, they said, a bit too extreme.

There is some good news: Despite the heavy-handedneocon influence at CPAC’s leadershiplevel, many attendees tend to be younger andmore libertarian oriented. There has been among them a growing opposition to global intervention,certainly reflecting the fact that it is young peoplewho die in the wars neocons relish.

In the old days, CPAC received little attention.These days CPAC is very much in the news, and, iftruth be told, that’s the way the forces that controlthe big media want it to be. What happens at CPAC—and the “new faces” that emerge as “leaders” (asdesignated by the media monopoly)—can and mustbe considered a product of the opinion-molding forces of the NWO elite.

New GOP Golden Boys Emerge

• Senators Rand Paul & Marco Rubio have much in common

By Michael Collins Piper

If current hype in the media is to be believed,Sensators Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.)are now the biggest names fighting for the 2016GOP presidential nomination.

The media coverage of Paul and Rubio is interestingand suggests that the two are really muchalike, despite cosmetic differences.

While Paul is often presented as a more “independent” voice, in contrast to Rubiowho has well-established GOP ties, both aredescribed as tea party favorites. And yet, Paul has carefully groomed links to high-rankingGOP functionaries who helped himwin his Kentucky Senate seat in 2006.

And despite the fact that within the tea party movement there is a stark (though little-noticed) divide over foreign policy, thetwo senators are closer than people realize.

Many tea party enthusiasts strongly support United States military ventures abroad, seeingAmerica as a needed force for establishinga good, solid world order under what’scalled “American exceptionalism”—that’sthe New World Order—but many tea party folksdon’t realize that. Rubio touts American exceptionalism, but Paul has expressed concerns (like his father,retired Representative Ron Paul) about an over-reachingmilitary presence around the globe.

At the same time, however, the media praises Paul, saying he stands in stark contrast—often describedas “refreshing”—to his father who is cast asa likeable, though somewhat kooky, extremist. The media says Paul can reach a more broad-rangingGOP audience than his father ever could.

What’s more, the media gloats, Paul is reaching out to Israel and its influential supporters in America,which Rubio has already done during his fastrise to the top. And as leading neocon guru Frederick Kagan noted, Paul does not differfrom the neocons when it comes to Israel’s primarypresent concern: a nuclear-armed Iran.

While his own father was still running for president and criticizing bellicose voices urging U.S. and Israel military action against Iran, the younger Paulwas voting for provocative measures against the Islamic republic, echoing rhetoric about Islamic extremism,akin to that of neocon power brokerNorman Podhoretz who says America is now engaged in its “third world war”—against Islam.

For his own part, Rubio—the child of Cuban immigrants—is in trouble with many conservativesconcerned about his immigration “reform” proposalsmany see as opening the door for legalization of millions of illegal immigrants now in America.

Likewise, libertarian conservatives—which Paul is—have been historically friendly toward “openborders.” Where Paul will stand on this issue, remainsto be seen. However, he has talked about it in a manner that leaves many hard-line advocates ofcracking down on illegal immigration a bit uneasy.Meanwhile, according to The Washington Times —a beacon of “official” conservative thought —a new consensus is emerging among those who attended CPAC 2013. In a front page story on March 15, the Times reported: “GOP leaders have decidedit’s time their party surmounts the immigrationissue, embraces legalization and moves on.” It added that a CPAC panel on immigration “was stacked withadvocates for legalization of illegal immigrants—astance that until recently has been a decidedly minority position within the GOP.”

On the issue of “gay marriage”—which some prominent Republicans have endorsed—Paul andRubio adopt a libertarian stance. Paul says he canenvision reworking the tax code to permit homosexual couples to take advantage of tax benefitsnow available to heterosexual couples. Rubio toldCPAC the proposed Constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between a man and womanshould be abandoned and that the issue should beleft to the states (a position Paul’s father took during his presidential campaign).

Diverse Groups Rallied Behind Paul’s Filibuster

By Michael Collins Piper

In the days leading up to CPAC 2013, thename of Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was verymuch in the news. Even before CPAC itwas nearly impossible to read major media accounts of his activities without consistentlyseeing Paul’s name linked in headlines with themagic number “2016.”

And while Paul’s recent widely publicized Senate filibuster correctly drew attention to theObama administration’s secretive and dangerouspolicy on the use of drone warfare and brought vocal criticism by old reliable GOPwarmongers such as Senators John McCain (Ariz.)and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the more nuanced aspects of the controversy surrounding the filibustergot lost in the shuffle over name callingby McCain and his evil twin.

Many conservatives—joining McCain and company—actually favor the use of drones aspart of the vaunted “war on terrorism” launchedunder Dubya Bush. The drones are integral to the “homeland security” theme and the fightagainst the allegedly ubiquitous “Islamic terrorists”said to be lurking behind every corner (hereand abroad) ready to strike America and its reputedinterests around the planet. So the truth isthat a lot of the conservatives rallying behind Paul’s filibuster only did so because they saw itas a convenient way to embarrass Obama.

In fact, Paul’s filibuster received energetic support from many liberals who otherwise supportObama. Washington Post columnist EugeneRobinson and former Bill Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta weighed inagainst the drone policy, praising Paul.

And there’s another little-mentioned aspect of Paul’s filibuster. Much of Paul’s ire focusedon new Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief John Brennan. Many viewBrennan as insufficiently supportive of Israel, and he was even accused of secretly convertingto Islam during his days as CIA station chiefin Saudi Arabia—a claim most consider Israeli propaganda.

Pro-Israel writer Emmett Tyrell describedBrennan as “closer to the Arab line than anyother recent top spymaster has ever been”—and, as a consequence, a few analysts have suggested that, in his filibuster against Brennan, Paul was carrying water for the Israeli lobby.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

Required fields are marked with an *. Your email address will not be published. All comments containing hyperlinks will be held in moderation until they are formatted properly, but will be posted. All comments containing obscenities will be amended and posted, unless they are too obscene and nonsensical, in which case they will be deleted.